I have been having some conversations on pipe smoking and while I don't think the best way to approach taking up the pipe are with health claims I did find some possible interesting points in this 2009 article from Pipes Magazine.

My question for you gents (and ladies) is have any of you seen any of the source material behind this article? The author mentions reduced colon cancer risk, lower prostate cancer risk and reduction in Alzheimer's symptoms.

Anecdotally, I find (and I'm sure many others are with me) a massive reduction in stress while smoking. Considering stress probably causes or exacerbates 90% of the health problems modern man suffers from, I'd say that's a pretty big benefit.

There was a WHO study from 1960 that showed pipe smokes live longer than non-smokers. I attribute this to the stress reduction. I don't think any other studies have shown anything similar, but then again I can't think of any that looked at pipe smokers as a distinct group from "smokers."

There was a WHO study from 1960 that showed pipe smokes live longer than non-smokers. I attribute this to the stress reduction. I don't think any other studies have shown anything similar, but then again I can't think of any that looked at pipe smokers as a distinct group from "smokers."

-Andrew

I hadn't heard of the WHO study, but of one done by the Surgeon General of the U.S. in 1971

I think the studies showing longer life-spans, etc. are because of the life-styles of those who tend to be pipe smokers. Pipe smoking is a big de-stresser, but it seems that pipe smokers, generally - as a rule of thumb, tend to live more laid back (even healthy) lives than usual. I think their attraction to pipe smoking has to do with their natural bents - which also tend to produce longer life-spans.

I think Rusty has always been pretty honest about the fact that burning tobacco always produces carcinogens - regardless of how natural or organic, uncased, etc. the tobacco is.

I'm skeptical of popular references. I'll read the article and then see.

The Alzheimers stuff I've heard before. But these are heavy cig smokers. The other group for which smoking seems to help is the paranoid schizophrenics and perhaps other mental illnesses too. So I think benefit has to be relative to the afflictions from which pone normally suffers.

There is not a lot of contemporary medical research on pipe smoking, rather than cigs or tobacco generally, because our numbers are so small. Should they do research on the ailments of 1/2-1% of the adult population?

In the past many pipe smokers were in fact habituated cig smokers too. Many smoked cigs as well as pipes. Of those that were dedicated to their pipes many were also habituated. Einstein is an example of the latter.
These folks are quite different than us and you really can't compare a hobbyist to them.

At one time I found a cache of Fed Gov health poll results for the US in the 80's and they asked about smoking and most of pipe smokers surveyed also smoked cigs. I was quite surprised at the numbers. But I had no idea whether it was complete data set or why it had been partitioned. So I think they were different than the hobbyists of today.

There are a few problems that historically did afflict pipe smokers. Throat, lip, tongue cancers and sores were noted as well as dental problems. But they all smoked with much more frequency than is even possible today. Smoking bans deny most of us the opportunity to smoke non-stop today. Vulcanite (stems) causes sore and problems with some pipe smokers even today. Acrylic seems to be neutral on that score. At least I haven't seen any health complaints.

While pipe smoking is relaxing, this is a behaviour affectation. It's like meditating and of course it yields the feeling we expect. But BP goes up when we smoke. Always. I had a running discussion with my Doc who claimed that smoking anything raises BP to dangerous levels for those who are hypertensive anyway (that's me, uncleBob, and a bunch of others here). So I decided to do the experiment. Our BP varies over the day; there is a rhythm and pattern to it. BP does increase with smoking and the response is within minutes to smoking, even if one doesn't inhale. But after trials and profiling my own daily BP range, without smoking, etc my BP when smoking remained with the range of my BP over the day anyway. Now that does not preclude experiencing a higher max by picking the point where BP is at a daily max anyway and then smoking. But it never qualified as dangerously high. My Doc couldn't produce any clinical reports that justified his statement.

I'm skeptical of popular references. I'll read the article and then see.

The Alzheimers stuff I've heard before. But these are heavy cig smokers. The other group for which smoking seems to help is the paranoid schizophrenics and perhaps other mental illnesses too. So I think benefit has to be relative to the afflictions from which pone normally suffers.

There is not a lot of contemporary medical research on pipe smoking, rather than cigs or tobacco generally, because our numbers are so small. Should they do research on the ailments of 1/2-1% of the adult population?

In the past many pipe smokers were in fact habituated cig smokers too. Many smoked cigs as well as pipes. Of those that were dedicated to their pipes many were also habituated. Einstein is an example of the latter.
These folks are quite different than us and you really can't compare a hobbyist to them.

At one time I found a cache of Fed Gov health poll results for the US in the 80's and they asked about smoking and most of pipe smokers surveyed also smoked cigs. I was quite surprised at the numbers. But I had no idea whether it was complete data set or why it had been partitioned. So I think they were different than the hobbyists of today.

There are a few problems that historically did afflict pipe smokers. Throat, lip, tongue cancers and sores were noted as well as dental problems. But they all smoked with much more frequency than is even possible today. Smoking bans deny most of us the opportunity to smoke non-stop today. Vulcanite (stems) causes sore and problems with some pipe smokers even today. Acrylic seems to be neutral on that score. At least I haven't seen any health complaints.

While pipe smoking is relaxing, this is a behaviour affectation. It's like meditating and of course it yields the feeling we expect. But BP goes up when we smoke. Always. I had a running discussion with my Doc who claimed that smoking anything raises BP to dangerous levels for those who are hypertensive anyway (that's me, uncleBob, and a bunch of others here). So I decided to do the experiment. Our BP varies over the day; there is a rhythm and pattern to it. BP does increase with smoking and the response is within minutes to smoking, even if one doesn't inhale. But after trials and profiling my own daily BP range, without smoking, etc my BP when smoking remained with the range of my BP over the day anyway. Now that does not preclude experiencing a higher max by picking the point where BP is at a daily max anyway and then smoking. But it never qualified as dangerously high. My Doc couldn't produce any clinical reports that justified his statement.

It's tough to separate smoking from other environment problems when we see reports like this.

I can see why it will be nigh impossible to have a true independent study that is scientific in process and specific to pipes. The tobacco industry has every reason not to commission such a study and the general populace likes the simplicity of "tobacco = BAD". Why mess up the status quo?

You can quibble about whether pipes help people relax, or whether relaxed people tend to smoke pipes. It does seem to me that pipe smoking is relaxing, but I really don't know that it matters.

Rusty's point about the small sample of pipe smokers these days is absolutely valid, as is his noting that it has always been kind of difficult to find "pure" pipe smokers, folks who JUST smoke pipes, as opposed to pipes and cigarettes. Personal observation of the stock at my local tobacconists and of the general public in their natural environments convinces me that there are a lot of people who smoke cigarettes during the day and have a pipeful at night.

Years ago, I read the then-current surgeon general's report. I saw tables that I remember to this day. They showed that a person's risk of mortality and disease was indistinguishable from non-smokers at levels of two cigarettes a day, OR three cigars a day or fewer, OR five or fewer pipefuls a day. You can find similar data, as well as names and dates, if you scroll down to the section on health in this maniac's post:

You can find the old surgeon general's reports, all of them, in PDF form, free for the googling. If you have the patience, you can find charts showing similar data. More than one (I have seen them) show that pipe smokers (usually at levels of five pipefuls a day or fewer) do outlive non-smokers a bit. Others show that pipe smokers do have (generally slightly) elevated risks of certain diseases. How to reconcile longer lifespans and greater risk of certain diseases? I assume that if there is a greater risk of some diseases, there is a lower risk of others.

To my mind, it comes down to dosage. It is VERY difficult to prove that smoking, say, 1- 3 bowls a day poses a SIGNIFICANT risk, but I think we can all agree that smoking from sunup to sundown would be bad for anyone.

Nor can you ignore, in this whole discussion, the role of some protective behaviors. If you look at the data in the Framingham study, among others, it becomes clear that serum cholestorol provides some protective effect against cancer. It seems that the role of cruciferous veggies is well established, as is getting regular sleep, maintaining a healthy weight, exercise, and so forth.

If a person's eating decently, getting enough rest, exercise, spirituality, etc., I have a hard time believing that a pipeful or so a day is really going to hurt him.

Just my two cents. Your mileage may vary.

If the American people ever really understand the Left, they'll boil them in oil.

There was a WHO study from 1960 that showed pipe smokes live longer than non-smokers. I attribute this to the stress reduction. I don't think any other studies have shown anything similar, but then again I can't think of any that looked at pipe smokers as a distinct group from "smokers."

-Andrew

I hadn't heard of the WHO study, but of one done by the Surgeon General of the U.S. in 1971

I'm clearly confused.... I think it is the SG's report I'm thinking of, though a quick google shows 1964. Could be wrong.

There was a WHO study from 1960 that showed pipe smokes live longer than non-smokers. I attribute this to the stress reduction. I don't think any other studies have shown anything similar, but then again I can't think of any that looked at pipe smokers as a distinct group from "smokers."

-Andrew

I hadn't heard of the WHO study, but of one done by the Surgeon General of the U.S. in 1971

I'm clearly confused.... I think it is the SG's report I'm thinking of, though a quick google shows 1964. Could be wrong.

-Andrew

I was just going off of memory - from a flyer at the Richmond Pipe Show that I saw in 2008 or 2009!? So, I'm sure you're correct.